Can I use an electronic signature?

Yes. Electronic signatures that meet ESIGN (15 U.S.C. ch. 96) and applicable state UETA requirements are generally enforceable for internal project approvals and contracts, provided intent, consent, attribution, and retention are documented.

Not typically for an internal feasibility analysis. Notarization is only required when the analysis is converted into a legal instrument that state law requires to be notarized, such as certain deed or affidavit filings.

How should I retain signed copies?

Store the final signed PDF with audit trail in a secure repository and retain per your organization policy and legal baselines; follow IRS (IRC §6501(a)) and HIPAA (45 CFR §164.530(j)) retention if applicable.

What if assumptions change after signing?

Prepare an addendum or revised analysis and route it through the same approval workflow. Record the version change and justification in the document history for governance and audit purposes.

Who can sign on behalf of an organization?

Signatories should be those with delegated signing authority per internal policy or resolution; obtain confirmation of authority in writing to avoid later disputes about attribution.

Are eSignatures secure and auditable?

Modern platforms capture timestamps, IP addresses, and signer events; when combined with appropriate authentication and tamper‑evident records, they provide a defensible audit trail for approvals and contracts.

Electronic Signature
Templates
Project Management
Project Management Feasibility Analysis

Project Management Feasibility Analysis

This template is fully customizable. Edit the text, fill out the fields, and send it for signature. Give it a try!

PROJECT MANAGEMENT FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

Project Identification

Project Title Project ID

Client Name: Client Contact:

Service Provider: Project Manager:

Prepared By

Prepared Date:

Executive Summary

Scope of Work

Proposed Scope (In-Scope) Out of Scope

Deliverables and Acceptance Criteria

Deliverable 1 — Description Deliverable 1 — Acceptance Criteria Deliverable 2 — Description Deliverable 2 — Acceptance Criteria

Timeline and Milestones

Anticipated Start Date: Anticipated End Date:

Milestone 1

Target Date:

Milestone 2

Target Date:

Budget, Payment, and Change Order Process

Estimated Total Cost Proposed Payment Schedule Change Order Process

All changes to scope, schedule, or budget will be effected only by a written change order signed by authorized representatives of both parties. Change orders must state the reason for the change, the effect on schedule, an itemized cost adjustment, and updated acceptance criteria. Change orders not signed by both parties within ten (10) business days of submission will be deemed rejected unless otherwise agreed in writing.

Feasibility Assessment

Technical Feasibility Operational & Organizational Feasibility Financial Feasibility

Overall Feasibility Determination: Feasible Feasible with Mitigation Not Feasible

Risks, Assumptions, and Dependencies

Key Risks Principal Assumptions External Dependencies

Recommendation and Decision Criteria

Acceptance, Confidentiality, and Governing Law

Acceptance Procedure: Deliverables will be submitted in writing for client review. Client shall have a review period of ten (10) business days from delivery to accept or reject for material non-conformance. Rejections shall identify defects with reasonable particularity. Service Provider shall remedy defects within a reasonable time at no additional cost if defects arise from failure to meet the agreed acceptance criteria. Final acceptance occurs upon written confirmation by the Client.

Confidentiality: Each party shall hold in confidence all non-public information disclosed in connection with this analysis and shall not disclose such information to third parties except to those employees, contractors, and advisors who have a need to know and are bound by confidentiality obligations no less protective than those contained herein. Confidential information shall not include information that is or becomes publicly known through no breach by the receiving party.

Governing Law and Dispute Resolution: This feasibility analysis and any resulting services shall be governed by the laws of the jurisdiction identified below. The parties agree to attempt good-faith negotiation prior to initiating any formal dispute resolution. Mandatory arbitration or other specific dispute clauses may be added by written amendment signed by both parties.

Governing Jurisdiction

Certifications and Notices

By signing below, each signatory represents and warrants that they are duly authorized to execute this Feasibility Analysis on behalf of the party they represent, that the information provided in this document is accurate and complete to the best of their knowledge, and that they acknowledge the change order, acceptance, confidentiality, and governing law provisions set forth above.

Client Name:

By:

Date:

Service Provider:

By:

Date:

What a Project Management Feasibility Analysis Is

A Project Management Feasibility Analysis is a structured document that evaluates whether a proposed project is viable across scope, schedule, cost, resources, and risk. It summarizes objectives, technical and financial assumptions, alternatives, constraints, stakeholder needs, and measurable success criteria. The analysis commonly includes an executive summary, cost estimates, resource plans, risk register, schedule outline, and recommendations so decision makers can compare options and authorize next steps or additional planning work.

Why this analysis matters for decision makers

A clear feasibility analysis reduces uncertainty by documenting assumptions, quantifying costs and benefits, and exposing risks so stakeholders can make informed go/no‑go decisions. When prepared correctly it provides an auditable record of the rationale for pursuing, modifying, or shelving a project and supports budget approvals and vendor selection.

Who typically prepares and reviews this analysis

Internal teams and external advisors commonly collaborate to produce the feasibility analysis, with distinct roles for sponsors, project managers, and subject matter experts.

Project Sponsor — provides strategic goals and funding context; validates assumptions and approves scope adjustments.
Project Manager / PMO — leads data collection, constructs schedule and resource plan, and coordinates stakeholder input for the report.
Functional SMEs and Finance — supply technical feasibility, cost estimates, regulatory requirements, and business case inputs.

The finished report is reviewed by sponsors, governance committees, and procurement or finance for final approval and budget allocation.

Essential sections to include in a professional feasibility analysis

A complete analysis organizes findings into standard sections so reviewers can compare alternatives quickly and trace the basis for estimates and recommendations.

Executive Summary

One‑page overview of objectives, recommended option, high‑level cost range, schedule summary, and key risks to enable quick executive review and alignment.

Scope and Requirements

Define in‑scope deliverables, out‑of‑scope items, acceptance criteria, and key functional or technical requirements that drive cost and schedule.

Cost Estimate

Itemized capital and operating cost ranges, assumptions, contingencies, and sensitivity analysis showing how cost changes with key variables.

Schedule and Milestones

High‑level timeline with major phases, critical path items, and estimated completion dates for procurement, design, implementation, and commissioning.

Resource Plan

Staffing needs, third‑party vendor roles, hardware or software prerequisites, and timing for resource acquisition or training.

Risk and Mitigation

Identified risks with likelihood/impact ratings and mitigations, plus contingent actions and triggers for escalation to governance.

Step‑by‑step process to create the feasibility analysis

Follow this sequence to gather inputs, validate estimates, and produce a decision‑ready deliverable.

01

Initiate: Define scope and appoint lead
02

Collect data: Gather cost, schedule, and technical inputs
03

Analyze: Run cost models and risk assessments
04

Review & approve: Route to sponsors and governance for decision

Typical digital workflow settings for collaboration and approvals

Configure your document workflow to match organizational approval order, authentication strength, and retention needs.

Field	Configuration
Approval Order	Sequential or parallel signers per governance
Authentication	Email link, SMS code, or KBA for higher assurance
Conditional Fields	Show cost breakdown only if > threshold
Retention Tag	Apply legal hold or archive policy automatically

How electronic completion and routing typically works

Electronic workflows streamline review and capture an audit trail of each action for compliance and traceability.

Upload: Attach the feasibility document in PDF or DOCX
Place fields: Add signature, date, and input fields
Send: Route to approvers by email or link
Complete: Signers authenticate and sign; certificate recorded

Platform considerations when eSigning the analysis

Choose a solution that supports the file formats you use and the authentication required by policy.

File formats: PDF, DOCX supported
Integrations: Connects to SharePoint/NetSuite/Google
Audit trail: Captures IP, timestamps, actions

Ensure the chosen platform can produce a tamper‑evident signed record, meet any industry compliance (for example HIPAA), and export standard audit reports for governance.

Typical internal timelines and decision deadlines

Set clear review windows and escalation points so the feasibility analysis produces timely decisions and minimizes rework.

Draft Completion:

Initial draft delivered within 10 business days

Stakeholder Review:

Consolidated feedback due in 7 business days

Governance Approval:

Decision or conditional approval within 21–30 days

Procurement Lead Time:

Vendor selection and contracting may add 30–90 days

Implementation Start:

Begin within approved schedule window

Security and compliance controls to look for

Encryption: AES‑256 at rest

Transport: TLS 1.2/1.3 in transit

Certifications: SOC 2 Type II; ISO 27001

Privacy: HIPAA compliant with BAA

Audit Trail: Full action log and timestamps

Accessibility: WCAG 2.0 Level AA

Risks and potential consequences of errors

Scope Creep: Budget and schedule overruns

Incorrect Estimates: Funding shortfalls

Regulatory Exposure: Noncompliance fines

Contract Delays: Procurement hold ups

Data Loss: Information unrecoverable

Stakeholder Confusion: Decision paralysis

Common mistakes to avoid when preparing the analysis

Using vague assumptions instead of measurable inputs, which makes comparison and sensitivity analysis unreliable.
Underestimating contingency and omitting vendor lead times, leading to optimistic schedules that later require scope reductions.
Failing to document decision criteria and approval authority, which prolongs governance cycles and invites repeated reviews.
Not preserving original data sources and version history, complicating audits and post‑project lessons learned.

Comparison of common eSignature vendors for feasibility analysis workflows

Price and capabilities vary; signNow is listed first to show a representative per‑user annual price alongside common market alternatives.

	signNow	DocuSign	Adobe Sign	PandaDoc	HelloSign
Starting Price	$8/user/mo	$15/user/mo	$14/user/mo	$19/user/mo	$15/user/mo
Free Trial	7-day free trial	Varies by vendor	Varies by vendor	Varies by vendor	Varies by vendor
Bulk Send	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Audit Trail	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
HIPAA Compliant	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
Envelope Cap	No cap	100 envelopes/user/year	Varies by plan	Varies by plan	Varies by plan

Real examples of how feasibility analyses were used

These brief cases illustrate practical outcomes when organizations used a documented feasibility analysis to guide decisions.

Optica Ventures — COO

Optica prepared a concise analysis to compare two delivery models and costs.

The team prioritized vendor integration.
The clear summary reduced executive review time and enabled funding approval within one quarter, improving time to contract and reducing procurement iterations.

Martin Properties — Founder

A property development feasibility focused on schedule risk and permitting.

They tracked permit durations.
The report enabled phased approvals, kept contingency transparent, and helped the sponsor secure project financing with documented milestones and risk mitigations.

Who signs and approves the feasibility analysis

Project Sponsor — VP of Operations

The sponsor signs to authorize scope and funding. Their signature confirms strategic alignment, accepts cost contingencies, and triggers procurement and budget entries according to internal controls and approval thresholds.

Project Manager — PMO Director

The project manager attests that the analysis reflects current assumptions and resource availability. Their signature indicates they will execute the approved plan and maintain version control for updates and post‑implementation reviews.

Practical tips for accurate and efficient completion

Adopt these practices to reduce rework, speed approvals, and preserve auditability.

Standardize templates

Use a consistent template and naming convention so reviewers can find assumptions and metrics quickly; this reduces back‑and‑forth and speeds governance decisions.

Document assumptions clearly

List and number assumptions with sensitivity analysis attached so reviewers can understand how changes will affect cost and schedule.

Use version control

Keep a version history and note what changed between drafts; this preserves auditability and simplifies reconciliation of reviewer comments.

Choose appropriate authentication

Require stronger signer authentication for approvals that bind budgets or create contractual obligations to meet legal and procurement policies.

Frequently asked questions about completing and signing this analysis

Answers below address common concerns about eSignatures, notarization, retention, and updating the analysis after approval.

Need help? Contact support

Can I use an electronic signature?
Yes. Electronic signatures that meet ESIGN (15 U.S.C. ch. 96) and applicable state UETA requirements are generally enforceable for internal project approvals and contracts, provided intent, consent, attribution, and retention are documented.
Do I need a notary?
Not typically for an internal feasibility analysis. Notarization is only required when the analysis is converted into a legal instrument that state law requires to be notarized, such as certain deed or affidavit filings.
How should I retain signed copies?
Store the final signed PDF with audit trail in a secure repository and retain per your organization policy and legal baselines; follow IRS (IRC §6501(a)) and HIPAA (45 CFR §164.530(j)) retention if applicable.
What if assumptions change after signing?
Prepare an addendum or revised analysis and route it through the same approval workflow. Record the version change and justification in the document history for governance and audit purposes.
Who can sign on behalf of an organization?
Signatories should be those with delegated signing authority per internal policy or resolution; obtain confirmation of authority in writing to avoid later disputes about attribution.
Are eSignatures secure and auditable?
Modern platforms capture timestamps, IP addresses, and signer events; when combined with appropriate authentication and tamper‑evident records, they provide a defensible audit trail for approvals and contracts.

be ready to get more

Join over 28 million airSlate SignNow users

Sign Now